UK Politics - Electoral Systems and Referendums

Question 1

How can we evaluate different electoral systems?

Answer 1

1) Proportionality and a fair result: The proportion of seats won should correspond to the overall percentage of the vote. A party gaining 15% of the vote should therefore ideally have 15% of MPs.
2) Vote value: All votes are equally important in determining the final outcome of an election, none are wasted. No voter should feel that their vote is pointless and counts for nothing. (safe-seats, two party dominance, after an MP gets in the rest of the votes go towards nothing)
3) Promoting participation and turnout: Electoral systems should incentivise high levels of turnout and participation. This is most likely when voters feel that casting their ballot could affect the final result.
4) Strong and accountable government: Voters should feel not only that any government is able to deliver its promises, but also that they can directly reward or punish a prime minister and their party based on their record in office.
5) Local links: MPs represent a specific regional area, enabling voters to bring grievances and concerns directly to their elected representatives.
6) Power of the party: Many voters might want an electoral system that allows them to choose between different candidates for the same party, preventing too much power being given to the central party bureaucracy and leadership.
7) Party choice and representation: The electoral system should encourage and enable a broad range of parties to stand in elections.
8) Comprehensibility and transparency: The system is easy for the public to understand and produces clear results. They should not be dubious backstairs post collection deals between the parties.

Inevitably, no one system scores highly in every category. Equally, all the systems have strengths in at least one area. In many cases, a strength in one area such as the first-past-the-post system (FPTP) usually generating strong majority governments, impacts negatively on another area, for example proportionality. With FPTP, no single party has won more than 50% of the vote in the UK general elections since 1945, the closest was 1955, when the Conservatives won 49.7% of the overall vote. Inevitably, every electoral system involves something of a trade-off.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h94riCmL0VNbemqnI_EOBYbDa9lS2Gn-Jr5_n3B0xms/edit

Question 2

Different electoral systems - definitions

Answer 2

Proportional electoral system:
- Electoral system that calculates the number of MPs or elect representatives by the actual number of votes each party receives (proportional representation)

Majoritarian electoral system:
- Electoral system in which the candidate with the highest number of votes in each constituency is elected, and those that come second or lower gain no seats, hence it is also called a ‘winner takes all’ system.

Question 3

What is ‘Make Votes Matter’?

Answer 3

• In 2015, this cross-party pressure group was formed and campaigned for a proportional electoral system for UK general elections, bringing together a number of groups and political parties which supported the replacement of the majoritarian system.
• The parties that supported this movement included the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the SNP, the Brexit Party, Plaid Cymru and the Electoral Reform Society.
• They were joined by a number of individuals from Labour and Conservative parties; however, their support of the reform is due to their handicapping by the FPTP
• They joined this cause because they are disadvantaged by FPTP - the Green Party, LibDems and the Brexit Party are limited by their lack of influence as they operate in a majoritarian system in which Westminster is normally controlled by one of two parties.

Question 4

What do proportional systems lead to and why does that mean it gets little support from Conservative or Labour MPs?

Answer 4

It normally results in a coalition government, and so the two main parties of C and L rarely support a system which could remove their government from a majority position and deny the opportunity to control Parliament in future. This is however the norm in the devolved assemblies.

Question 5

How do different electoral systems influence voting behaviour?

Answer 5

• They may cause voters to be more reluctant to choose a candidate they feel stands no chance of winning may vote tactically and choose a ‘least worst’ candidate; many do not vote at all and abstain.
• European elections since 1999 used a proportional system, with Eurosceptic parties such as UKIP and the Brexit party doing better in recent elections.
• This is partly due to them having more of a chance at influence and also at getting a candidate elected which encourages their voter base to vote them in. However, support for these parties might also reflect a ‘protest vote’ and that these elections are more focused on European issues.

Question 6

Main electoral systems in the UK - First-Past-The-Post

Answer 6

• Used in general elections and English local elections
• Works on a majoritarian principle that the candidate with the largest number of votes in each constituency wins, and the runner-ups get no electoral reward
• With the UK being divided in 650 single-member constituencies, it is possible for parties to gain a large number of voters across the country and yet win little to no seats

Question 7

Main electoral systems in the UK - Party List Proportional Representation

Answer 7

• Used in European Elections
• Instead of electing one person per constituency, each area is bigger and elects a group of MPs that more closely reflect the way the area voted
• The parties rank their candidates in each area, giving the highest-ranked candidates to the main parties, usually leaders and other senior figures being elected
• This system in the UK saw a division into 11 large regions e.g. South East England, with each having between 3 and 10 MEPs, with each elected on their vote share
• Use of the D’Hondt system - allocates seats in successive rounds, with one elected each round, with the total votes for each party received at the start of the process divided by the number of seats the party has already won + one and the party with the highest remaining total wins the seat in that round

Question 8

Main electoral systems - Additional Member Systems (AMS)

Answer 8

• Used in Scottish and Welsh parliaments and London Assembly
• Hybrid system (FPTP and List PR) where voters have two ballot papers and two votes
• The first is a list of candidates standing to be the constituency representative, and the second is the list of parties standing for election in the region (Scotland has 8 regions)
• In Scotland, 73 MSPs are selected from the Westminster style ballot paper and 56 from the second using the regional proportional list
• Votes for the Westminster style ballot are counted like FPTP, and the regional list ballots are counted and the overall vote proportion share is calculated
• If a party wins fewer constituency seats than its overall vote share entitles it too, the extra is made up of seats allocated to the second ballot, and so regional representatives top up any underrepresentation from the constituency results - more proportional result

Question 9

Main electoral systems in the UK - Single Transferable Vote (STV)

Answer 9

• Used in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish local council elections
• Multi-member constituencies where voters rank their choices in order of preference; a quota is worked out based on number of seats and total number of votes cast
• A candidate that has more first preference votes than the quota is immediately elected, and surplus votes are transferred to other candidates in proportion to the second preference marked on ballots received by that candidate
• If more candidates than seats remain, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are transferred to other candidates as determined by second preference
• Process continues until all seats are filled

Question 10

Main electoral systems in the UK - Alternative Vote

Answer 10

• Used in the election of parliamentary select committee chairs
• Voter adds a number by the name of each candidate by preference, and can put as many or as little numbers as they like - similar to STV but uses single-member constituencies and there is no quota
• If a candidate receives more than half the votes in each stage, then they are elected
• If no one reaches half, the lowest voted for candidate is eliminated and their second preference vote redistributed and the process is repeated until one candidate reaches at least half the vote - AV ensures the winning MP has support, even if it is second or third choice of the majority of constituents

Question 11

Evaluating the main electoral systems - Proportionality and a fair result

Answer 11

FPTP -
- FPTP is not a proportional system. It works on the majoritarian principle that the candidate with the largest number of votes in each constituency wins the seat.
- For example, in 2019 the conservatives won 77 more seats than their proportion of the overall vote entitled them to. By contrast, parties such as the Green Party and Brexit party were significantly underrepresented in terms of seats. The Green Party won 2.7% of the vote but just one (0.2%) MP.

List PR -
- Number of seats won closely reflects actual vote share of the parties
- E.g. brexit party won 39% of the overall vote and gain 4 (40%) of the seats

AMS -
- Falls between FPTP and List PR. The Lothians region result was largely proportionate, with the Scottish Conservative Party winning 25% of seats on a total vote share of 24%.
- The Scottish Green Party won no constituency seats but won 2/16 of seats overall with 11% share of the vote.

STV -
- As a proportional system, STV tends to deliver results that accurately reflect overall shares of the vote.
- This electoral system tends to be the one most preferred by advocates by a more proportional system, such as the Electoral Reform Society (ERS). As the ERS notes on its website, ‘Voters don’t have to worry about “vote splitting” or tactical voting with STV - they just put the candidates in order.

AV -
- Not a proportional system. Has never been used in national or regional elections.
- One study of the 2017 election predicted that it would have been a less proportional result than FPTP.
- The Lib-Dems and nationalist parties would all end up with fewer MPs than under the current system, with Labour picking up some seats from the Tories.
- AV ensures that every winning candidate has at least the tacit support of a majority of voters in their constituency.
- In 2019, 229 out of 650 MPs were elected with less than 50% of the vote. Five MPs were elected with less than 36% of the vote.

Question 12

Evaluating the main electoral systems in the UK - Vote Value

Answer 12

FPTP -
- High percentage of votes are wasted when FPTP is used and many voters feel unaccounted for.
- Many voters use tactical voting by spoiling their ballots or not voting for who they want to by choosing the opposing party to the leaders (enhancing the opposing parties numbers and challenging the leading party).

List PR -
- There is much less chance of votes being wasted, and a wider range of parties can be expected to win seats.
- Even dividing up the country into regions means the smallest parties still might not win any seats.

AMS -
- Less chance of votes for smaller parties being wasted.
Scottish Greens gained 2 seats due to the regional list MSPs.
- Where seats are not rewarded on a regional, not national list, the smallest parties remain unlikely to secure any seats.

STV -
- The system of preferential voting r
reduces potential for wasted votes as voting for minor parties can be effective on the final outcome, as first preference votes are redistributed using voters’ second preference votes.

AV -
- There is no disincentive to vote for a minority party or an independent

Question 13

Evaluating electoral systems in the UK - Promotion of participation and turnout

Answer 13

FPTP -
- Discourages participation. This is because it disincentivizes supporters of smaller parties and makes their votes wasted.
- However there hasn’t been a decline in general election turnouts (2010 65.1% - 2019 67.3%

List PR -
- Turnout for European elections is historically low when compared to general elections.
- In 2019, it was just 36.9%. It could be argued that this figure says more about wider public interest and perceptions of European elections than the type of electoral system used.
- If the system were used for general elections, turnout might be comparable, or even higher

AMS -
- No clear proof that AMS boosts turnout when comparing Scottish and Welsh turnout levels for elections.
- Welsh turnout in 2019 GE was 67% and 45% for 2016 devolved assembly election.
- Difference might reflect the differing importance attached to each election.
- No clear evidence that AMS by itself boosts turnout.

STV -
- Again comparing turnout with election using other systems is tricky. It is true that turnout in Northern Ireland in 2019 for the European elections at 45% was higher than for the rest of the UK. But Northern Ireland traditionally has high rates of turnout.

Question 14

Evaluation of the main electoral systems in the UK - Strong and accountable government

Answer 14

FPTP -
- Traditionally produced clear and decisive results enabling one party to govern with a decent Commons majority.
- An example is during 1979-2010 where the Conservatives and Labour were able to dominate government for lengthy periods. However in 2010 and 2017 the results were less conclusive resulting in a hung parliament, where there was no overall majority.
- Tory victory in 2019 could be viewed as a return to a pattern of strong single-party government.

List PR -
- Produces election results where no one party secures an overall majority of seats
- E.g. 2019 european elections, brexit party was the winning party but only got 29/73 seats
- This means coalition governments kind of becomes the rule in this case so less straightforward to punish or reward individual parties that have been in government
- Inevitably results in post-election deals and compromises between parties
- Can give disproportionate power to smaller partes which can act as ‘king-makers’
- Some would argue coalition is better than single-party rule

AMS -
- Almost inevitably produces minority governments.
- SNP has been the dominant force in the Scottish Parliament in recent elections, it has only once (2011) secured an overall majority.
- Although it produces multiparity government, in neither Scotland nor Wales has this led to political instability or deadlock and early elections

STV -
- Almost inevitably produces coalition or multiparty government.
- Usually leads to coalition deals and policy compromises, but its supporters argue that it is a small price to pay for ‘fairer votes’.
- They also point out that no single party has won more than 50% of the total vote in general elections since 1945. Hence, the UK has never voted for a single - party government in recent history.

AV -
- AV is able to produce a single party government. It is likely that many of the second votes would however go to one of the many parties, where voters have plumped for an independent or minor party as their first choice

Question 15

Evaluation of the main electoral systems in the UK - Local links

Answer 15

FPTP -
- Provides every constituency with its own MP. Many MPs enjoy a high profile in their local area and are directly accountable to their constituents.

List PR -
- Even if UK was broken down into regions representatives would still serve hundreds of thousands of constituents
- Would remove notion of an MP serving all their constituents
- Voters would probably be more inclined to approach an MP from their favoured party

AMS -
- Offers a local link not present with List PR but it also creates the potential for a two-tiered system of elected representatives - those directly elected and those elected via the top-up regional list and lack a direct mandate

STV -
- STV scores well here, as all elected members represent a geographical area, albeit a larger one than under FPTP. In addition, people can approach a range of representatives with their concerns. Conversely, it does mean that each representative oversees a pretty large area, perhaps five or more times larger than the current Westminster seats.

AV -
- Retains single member constituencies with one MP looking after and representing all their constituencies, provides every constituency with its own MP whose role is to represent all voters and look after their interest.

Question 16

Evaluation of the main electoral systems in the UK - Power of the Party (how much does the main party get)

Answer 16

FPTP -
- Doesn’t directly allow voters to choose between different candidates from the same party. Because most candidates are selected by the local party membership from a centrally approved list, the power of the central party is more limited.

List PR -
- Can transfer a large amount of power over to the central party.
- The parties decide on ranking of individual candidates, therefore guaranteeing that the most favoured candidates almost certainly get elected, while those at the bottom of the list lose

AMS -
- With its regional lists, AMS inevitably grants more power to central parties which rank the candidates like List PR
- The presence of constituency members, however, ensures that many members have been chosen locally be party members and activists

AV -
- Similar to FPTP, candidates would be largely chosen by local activists in their branch. Does not allow voters to choose between different candidates from the same party

Question 17

Evaluation of the main electoral systems in the UK - Party choice and representation

Answer 17

FPTP -
- Party choice and representation encourages and enables a broad range of parties to stand in elections.
- This affects FPTP as it affects the number of votes that go to the main two dominating parties (lowering the number of votes) and enabling voters to vote for who they want.

List PR -
- It tends to ensure that a wider range of candidates get elected.
- For example, in the 2009 European election 2 BNP candidates were elected as MEPs.
- Smaller parties such as the Green Party and UKIP/Brexit have traditionally had far more MEPs than MPs elected

AMS -
- Similar to List PR, third parties are much more likely to have greater representation than with FPTP - yet the range of parties represented in the Scottish and Welsh parliaments remains relatively small.
- Following the 2016 elections, the parties with assembly seats were just the three main national parties, the two nationalist parties, UKIP in Wales and the Green Party in Scotland.
- It also enables voters to have greater choice, as they can split their ticket using their constituency vote for one party and their list vote for another party.

STV -
- STV allows voters to choose between individual candidates from the same party, if the multi-member constituency is large enough for this to occur. The example from Northern Ireland with just three MEPs, meant that all the parties put up just one candidate knowing they would secure more than one seat.

AV -
- It does encourage and enable a broad range of parties to stand in elections. Voters get the opportunity to express their opinion on as many candidates as they wish - as they can list their preferred candidates in their own order.

Question 18

Evaluation of the main electoral systems in the UK - Comprehensibility and transparency

Answer 18

FPTP -
- Simple to understand and straightforward to operate. Gives a clear and quick result soon after the election.

List PR -
- Less straightforward and more cumbersome as it has multiple rounds
- Some argue it’s worth it for the fair result

AMS -
- AMS is more complicated than FPTP. It requires two ballot papers and also creates two categories of elected representatives.
- It is, however, relatively straightforward to count and calculate the result, and there are not multiple rounds like the List PR system.

STV -
- Not particularly straightforward system to understand and calculating the final allocation of seats can take some while. E.g in the ROI the process took two full days

AV -
- The system is quite easy to understand.

Question 19

Advantages of FPTP

Answer 19

1) The system is simple to use and easy to count anc calculate majorities (mark x next to candidate) - it is easy to tell which MP and party has won and who will form the government; smaller parties get less seats than their vote share might suggest

2) Stability - strong and stable governments have been produced, and therefore a more stable political system, and with only a few cases since 1945, has there been minority or weak governments (they are unusual) - May, Cameron and Wilson (easy for one party to win)
- Majority governments are a benefit - speed of formation (usually around 2 days) and can get policy manifestos done and started much quicker e.g. Belgium’s 2010 elections saw 11 parties in government and it took 541 days for the parties to be formed, and a caretaker government was in place who couldn’t make decisions on budget, defence or key foreign policy and this can be dangerous for a crisis (Belgium again struggled in COVID-19 as they were amidst coalition talks)
- Even in times of coalition, a government can be formed quickly, as it only took 5 days to form a Lib-Dem Conservative coalition, and talks even included Labour
Seats tend to be won by popular parties regardless of a system, and so it should create a majority for the popular parties - majorities are stable, strong and effective at dealing with manifesto promises and crisis and they are also more accountable
- Blair and Thatcher - a minority vote share was turned into a majority that allowed them to make transformational and necessary changes, but also may have been constrained from poor decisions that would have been prevented by a coalition
- Prevents tyranny from small parties and kingmakers - encourages moderation and keeps extremist parties out of power, and even if they have considerable support they cannot get Commons seats
- Encourages big-tent parties that include a wide range of ideological views and create common ground, but also can represent extremes and mediums on all issues - in contrast, a proportional system creates smaller, homogenous ideological parties that can win without moderation

3) MP constituency link - Dyadic representation - each votes has an MP that represents their constituencies and those who grow up in their constituencies make them well-positioned to defend its interests, and so disportionately doesn;t matter when MPs can still represent their constituency issues
Collective representation - parliament should represent the whole electorate, and would prefer a system in which constituency ideas are pooled

Question 20

Countering the advantages of FPTP

Answer 20

• However, votes can do AMS - simplicity is not important for a voting system
• However, crisis’ are caused by more than just an electoral system
• However, slim majorities can be considered weak (May in 2017 meant she could not pass Brexit acts)
• Minority and coalition governments in Scotland and Wales have proven stable (Conservative and LibDem coalition was stable and lasted a full term)
• The main UK parties have not always been homogenous, ideological and moderating, and are more ideological voices always been sidelined
• However, many MPs do not share the ideas of their constituents, and do not always represent diverse views with a small vote share and party whipping systems, and some do not even live in their constituencies

Question 21

What affects voting behaviour?

Answer 21

Psephology:
The statistical analysis of voting behaviour that originates from the Greek term for pebbles, psephos, based on the different coloured pebbles used to vote in Athens.

What affects voting behaviour?
- Personality of a candidate or party leader
- Attractiveness and relevance of th manifesto
- The influence of the campaign and the media i.e. how leaders come across in political debates or the impact of political adverts
- Characteristics such as social class, gender, ethnicity and age
- An individual’s own views about politics and important issues e.g. economy, tax, environment, the NHS, education, immigration, racial justice etc (more people are becoming single-issue voters, having one policy focus)
- The performance of the current government
- Tactical voting - wanting their vote to count of voting for the ‘least bad option’
- The nature of the electoral system - voters do not want to waste their votes on candidates or parties that are unlikely to win

Question 22

Different models of voting behaviour

Answer 22

Primacy model of voting:
Emphasises long-term factors such as social class, age and ethnicity and it focuses on voter profile and implies voter patterns are relatively stable, with change primarily occurring when voters feel a particular party no longer adequately represents them

Recency model of voting:
Emphasises short-term factors such as leadership and issues, and it suggests voting behaviour is more volatile and unpredictable

Valence issues:
These are issues that are uniformly liked or disliked by voters. So, while all voters support the NHS, voters are less unanimous as to which party will best manage and resource the NHS.

Question 23

Class and voting behaviour - how has it changed?

Answer 23

• Until relatively recently, social class was considered crucial when analysing UK voting behaviour. For much of the post-1945 period, the bulk of the working class tended to vote Labour while the bulk of the middle and upper classes voted Conservative, with the Liberal Party retaining a residual appeal
  among some of the middle class and providing a refuge for protest votes. Most academic research, therefore, focused on voters who did not conform to these stereotypes, such as working-class Tories.
• When it came to elections, both main parties had a set of core voters largely defined by social class. With politics largely based on class, parties adopted policies specifically designed to appeal to their core supporters. In addition,
  large swathes of the country were considered ‘safe’ for one or other party due to their class composition.
• Labour, for example, went virtually unchallenged in
  former coalfield areas such as the northeast or South Yorkshire.
• From the 1970s, as a result of a number of wider social factors including deindustrialisation, immigration, Britain’s relationship to Europe and changes in social attitude, class became far less easy to define.

Question 24

What are the new key factors in voting?

Answer 24

Class dealignment:
- As class has become more difficult to determine and less important in how voters see themselves, it is much less significant as an indication of how an individual casts their vote.

Partisan dealignment
- As parties have become less class-based, so fewer people feel that one of the parties ‘is for people like them’ instead they become much more like political consumers ‘shopping around’ for the best ‘basket’ of personalities and policies.

Floating or swing voters:
- A key effect of partisan dealignment is that more voters have become less faithful to a single party and are open to being wooed by a range of parties and willing to switch their vote - this means parties have to work harder at appealing to a wide base of voters instead of focusing on ensuring their core support turn out to vote for them.

Identity politics:
- Although somewhat vague, identity politics generally refers to the discussion of and campaigning sound issues pertaining to one’s identity - the focus typically falls on women, minority ethnic groups, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people and minority religious groups. It is an alternative or supplement to social class as a way of self-identification, and as a trend it has further fractured and complicated how we categorise individuals in society - people have a range of cultural identities.

Question 25

The impact of the emergence of third parties on voting behaviour

Answer 25

• While Labour and the Conservatives still largely predominate (together they secured 75.8% of the overall vote in 2019), at various times and in different elections smaller parties play a far more significant role than was the case 50 years ago. Nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland make multiparty elections the norm in those regions of the UK.
• Eurosceptic parties, such as UKIP and the Brexit Party, have fared especially well in European elections and have often had a ‘spoiler’ effect in general election contests, syphoning off votes from both Labour and, perhaps more significantly, the Conservatives.
• The decision by Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party not to contest Conservative-held seats in the 2019 election doubtless relieved many Tory strategists.

Question 26

Age as the new class in voting behaviour

Answer 26

• Increasingly, political scientists have concluded that one of the best predictors of voting behaviour, over class, gender or geography, is that of age.
• Simply put, the older one is the more likely they are to vote Conservative, even if the tipping point in the 2019 election was 39 not 35.
• For example, 56% of 18-24 year olds voted Labour in the 2019 election, whereas 67% of the over 70 bracket voted Conservative

Question 27

Why are the young voting left? - 2019 election

Answer 27

It is tricky to be precise about the reasons for age playing such a large part in voting behaviour. It does not relate to the age of the leadership — Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was considerably older than Conservative leader Boris Johnson in the 2019 election. It could potentially be down to some of the following factors:
- The election was particularly focused on Brexit. Younger voters as a whole were predominantly Remain, reflecting perhaps a more globalist worldview.
- Issues of national sovereignty were more important to older voters.
- Older voters tend to be more socially conservative and concerned about issues such as immigration, where the Conservatives were seen as tougher.
- Younger voters tend to be more focused on areas such as climate change, where Labour was viewed more positively.
- With changes to employment patterns, less job security and rising house prices, younger voters are often poorer and less likely to own their own home than many older voters. Labour has traditionally had a stronger appeal to low-income voters, and the Conservatives to homeowners and the better off.

Question 28

Referendums - Key National Referendums

Answer 28

1975:
- Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?
- Yes 67.23% v No 32.77%

2011:
- At present the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?
- Yes 32.10% v No 67.90%

2016
- Should the United Kingdom remain a member or the European Union of leave the European Union:
- Remain 48.11% v Leave 51.89%

Question 29

Key regional referendums - 1973-1998

Answer 29

1973:
Northern Ireland - Northern Ireland border poll; Should Northern Ireland remain part of the UK or join the Irish Republic?
- Remain in UK - 98.9% v Leave UK - 1.1%

1979:
- Scotland & Wales
- Devolution
- Scotland - Slim majority in favour, devolution was not enacted despite this, as turnout did not each the 40% threshold
- Wales - For - 20.26% v Against - 79.74%

1997:
- Scotland
- Devolution
- Yes - 74.29% v No - 25.71%

1997:
- Wales
- Devolution
- Yes - 50.3% v No - 49.7%

1998
- Northern Ireland & Republic of Ireland
- Good Friday Agreement - Do you support the agreement reached at the multi party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?
- NI - Yes - 71.12% v No - 28.88%
- Republic of Ireland - Yes - 94.39%
v No - 5.61%

Question 30

Key regional referendums - 1998-2014

Answer 30

1998:
- London
- London Mayor and Greater London Authority Assembly
- Are you in favour of government proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected assembly and an elected mayor?
- Yes - 72.01% v No - 27.99%

2004:
- Northeast
- Northeast England devolution
- Yes - 22.07% v No - 77.93%

2011:
- Wales - Extending powers of the Welsh Assembly
- Do you want the Assembly now to be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for?
- Yes - 63.49% v No - 36.51%

2014:
- Scotland
- Scottish Independence - Should Scotland be an independent country?
- Yes - 44.7% v No - 55.3%

Question 31

What are referendums in the UK focused on?

Answer 31

• These one time votes on single issues often relate to constitutional issues such as sovereignty and devolution - they are never used for ethical and moral issues as they are in the US or Republic of Ireland
• When referendums are held it is usually because either the government believes they will win or it represents political ideals - AV referendum was a direct result of the Coalition Agreement because they demanded the opportunity for electoral reform
• Never happen because of petitions or direct action pressures

Question 32

For referendums - arguments summarised

Answer 32

1) Referendums engage voters in political debate and decision-making over specific issues - this often promotes participation among groups that are traditionally less politically active - turnout can sometimes be higher than general elections e.g. 81% for the Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement Poll and 84.6% for the Scottish Independence vote
2) Referendums offer a direct link between policy-making and the national will - those who see virtue in the idea of a more direct link between the popular will and the levers of power therefore admire them as an instrument of empowerment for the too-often neglected people.
3) Referendums can absorb divisions within parties, something not possible at general elections where voters can only choose between parties and national manifestos - they enable voters to fine tune their policy preferences
4) Referendums can provide a much-needed check on governments and this is particularly applicable in the UK, whereas the parliamentary system usually gives vast power to the executive between elections but governments are only voted for by a minority of the electorate
5) Greater use of referendums in other Western democracies
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NbzzkNamwgTxQbMgb-7rUaB7tR4mlDaT36AV2qHopJA/edit

Question 33

Against referendums - arguments summarised

Answer 33

• Referendums are a blunt instrument and do not allow decisions beyond a binary YES/NO - elected representatives are able to define and debate such refinements in contrast
• They undermine and weaken representative democracy
• Many issues are complicated and may not be easily understood by a majority of voters - in place of balanced arguments, some voters are swayed by campaign propaganda that can be simplistic and misleading - many Remain supporters accused the Leave campaign of misleading voters by promising an additional £350 million a week to the NHS using funds that went on EU membership
• The political debate initiated by referendums can often be bitter and divisive - this was especially true of Brexit and Scottish independence
• Controversial issues are not always decided ‘once and for all’ by a single referendum - many wanted a second Brexit referendum on ‘deal or no deal’ or to conclude after deciding on a deal or not - SNP has demanded a second independence referendum
• Turnout in some referendums can be low; 34% in the vote over creating the London mayor and Greater London Authority and 42% for the AV referendum